Support

A cookie is a piece of data stored by your browser or device that helps websites like this one recognize return visitors. We use cookies to give you the best experience on BNA.com. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. If you continue browsing, you agree to this site’s use of cookies.

Marketing Services

Bloomberg Next marketing services allow clients to elevate their brands and extend their reach through our established and trusted expertise, enhanced with engaging event production, appealing design, and compelling messaging.

Nov. 29 — Legal challenges to a major Clean Water Act rule could be rendered moot if the incoming
Trump administration persuades the courts to send the regulation back for a rewrite,
several water attorneys told Bloomberg BNA.

President-elect Donald Trump singled out the currently stayed Clean Water Rule for
rollback during his campaign. Since the election, Trump reiterated his position on
his transition team
website: “We will eliminate the highly invasive ‘Waters of the US’ rule.’”The Clean Water Rule (RIN:2040-AF30), also known as the waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)
rule, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
clarifies which waters and wetlands fall under the protection of the Clean Water Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reviewing the rule, which it stayed
last October. The 32 states and dozens of groups representing business, agriculture,
manufacturing and property rights challenging the rule say it represents government
overreach and further muddies the scope of the Clean Water Act.

During the past several days, environmental attorneys have discussed with Bloomberg
BNA what options are available to the Trump administration if it decides not to defend
the rule in the nearly a dozen lawsuits filed in federal appeals and district courts.

If the Justice Department refused to defend the rule, other intervenors that have
the status of parties to the suits could step in to mount a defense, Harvard Law School
Professor Jody Freeman said in an e-mail.

However, these lawsuits can be rendered irrelevant, Freeman added.

“If DOJ asks the court to hold the case in abeyance and send the rule back to EPA
the agencies for reconsideration, then if the lawsuit would be put on hold, and EPA
would have a chance to revise the rule, potentially mooting any litigation,” she wrote
in an e-mail. Right now the rule is stayed, so it is not being implemented in any
event, she added.

But could the Trump administration simply rescind the rule and then do nothing?

If a rule is mandated by statute, then the administrative agency has to issue a regulation
and defend it in court, she said.

“It can’t say, well, we’d rather not make this decision, even if the law tells us
to,”
Freeman said.

In this instance, she said, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the question of
Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands, and the agencies face pressure from the
regulated community to more precisely define the waters it may regulate.

However, Freeman said, the Trump administration could reconsider the rule and adopt
a narrower interpretation of the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers and the
EPA. It would then need to defend this decision, if challenged in court.

“So in the case of WOTUS, the corps and the EPA could take a more limited view of
their jurisdiction,”
she said.

Fredric Andes and Jeffrey Longsworth, attorneys with the Chicago and Washington, D.C.,
offices of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, agree that the lawsuits would be rendered moot
if the government informs the court of its plans. Longsworth is the attorney who helped
write a friend of the court brief for 88 U.S. lawmakers who oppose the rule.

“I think the agencies should publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing their
plans to withdraw the rule and to reinitiate the rulemaking,” Longsworth said in a
telephone interview. “That way they could turn to the court and say we published a
notice about our plans when seeking an abeyance.”

Hasty Withdrawal

Longsworth said the EPA could withdraw the rule through notice and comment, or Trump
could issue an executive order directing the EPA to withdraw the rule. But Andes,
who joined Longsworth on the call, said the new president cannot merely issue an executive
order to withdraw the rule.

Rather, it would be required under the Administrative Procedure Act to go through
a notice and comment process, he said.

“Remember what happened with President Ronald Reagan who issued an executive order
withdrawing pretreatment regulations soon after his inauguration in 1981. The Third
Circuit said you can’t do that without going through notice and comment,”
Andes said.

A revised rule would be the most effective way to yield a regulation that provides
more certainty to the industry, which Trump has repeatedly pledged to protect, said
Joshua Belcher, associate with the Houston office of Sutherland Asbill &
Brennan LLP.

At the same time, many of Trump’s advisers on the transition team have advocated slashing
the EPA’s budget, which would severely constrain its ability to rewrite rules, a labor-
and time-intensive process, Belcher said. “That will require a balancing act of resources.”

At the end of the day, the question remains whether the Trump administration is looking
for the quickest way to fulfill its campaign promise by just pulling back from the
rule altogether or by backing a long-term solution to the question of jurisdiction,
Belcher said.

Supreme Court May Not Accept Petition

Regarding the pending petition before the Supreme Court, Andes said, the High Court
is unlikely to move on it if the government has voluntarily offered to remand the
rule.

The Supreme Court was asked by the National Association of Manufacturers to review
whether a federal district court or an appeals court is the appropriate venue to hear
challenges to the Clean Water Rule. The association’s petition was backed by 32 states
as well as a coalition of agriculture, property rights, business and industry groups.
The government’s response is due Dec. 7.

Longsworth said the Supreme Court is not likely to accept the petition if the underlying
rule will be remanded. This is despite the fact that the petition deals with resolving
the confusion over legal review of the water rule, and potentially all other rules
that don’t fit neatly into the categories of effluent limits, permits and water quality
standards that the Clean Water Act says should be reviewed by a federal appeals court.

The Supreme Court will try to get rid of a petition based on mootness or standing
before taking the issue up on the merits, Longsworth said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Amena H. Saiyid in Washington at
asaiyid@bna.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Larry Pearl at
lpearl@bna.com

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)